No Man-Istan

Dawn columnist Nadeem Paracha (“Smoker’s Corner”) is a brave man. Of all the out-of- the-closet critics of Pakistani society in the media, I find his writing to be the most accurate, honest, to-the-point, and humorous. Cowasjee is another exceptional critic, but he’s of an older generation, one that is more erudite – articulate and poetic – and perhaps better educated. Paracha considers himself a “moderate” Muslim, but I would say, for this place, he’s as liberal as you get. He’s also a socialist well-versed in political theory, and he’s not afraid to apply those critiques to Muslim and/or “Eastern” society as much as to Western capitalism. This article in particular backs up my latest blog post: www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/columnists/nadeem-f-paracha-loons-of-doom

And for more backup on my perception of the far right bias in Pakistani media (anti-India, anti-Semitic, xenophobic, pro-patriarchy, pro mullah-military hegemony) here is another Dawn piece from another great writer, Hajrah Mumtaz: www.dawn.com/wps/wcm/connect/dawn-content-library/dawn/the-newspaper/local/exploring-a-rightwing-media-159

But that’s not the gist of my latest entry. I said in previous posts that I would write more about my personal experience with Sufism in Pakistan, and I will do that now. At first I thought it would be petty and unwise to put such an expose online, but I’ve already done this in previous posts concerning other nefarious characters, so why not? Besides, I’ve taken care not to name names.

I guess one of the reasons I’m so disillusioned and disappointed is that I’ve long thought that Sufism is Pakistan’s, and by extension Islam’s, saving grace. Not in all forms, but in its essentials it speaks of a certain mystical purity, sometimes also found among the Shi’a, rarely seen in today’s highly politicized resurgent “Islamic renaissance.”

My Sufi teacher, let’s call her “Begum” (which roughly translates as “madam”) I visited on about five different occasions, not including our first meeting at the famous Karachi Sufi shrine Abdullah Shah Ghazi. Her estate, where I attended some of her weekly gatherings (after evening prayers) is rather large – for land-strapped inner Karachi, that is – and is nicely shaded with trees and plenty of green plants, around a spacious house.

She smiled a lot, and seemed content with her own life (which I suspect is what added to her reputation of being “spiritual,” needed for any charismatic teacher of that sort) but I didn’t sense that her beliefs were any different from orthodox Muslims. Like most Sufis, she complained a lot about Wahabbism and its effects on Islam, but not all critics of Salafi Islam are open-minded (indeed, some of these critics include radical militants). One thing she said to me that was perceptive was that I should spend more time with spiritual people, as others can weigh you down with too much negative thinking, they “hurt your heart” was how she put it. Although that statement can sound rather arrogant and elitist, it is true that we should choose our friends wisely. But as it turns out, her own thoughts didn’t impress me either. What’s true about what she said is that many people in Pakistan in my experience, both secularists and outwardly pious “religious” types, are oriented towards material values, more so, it seems, than even in America, which is supposed to be the emblem of shallow, superficial, decadent capitalism to the Muslim world.

When she spoke about politics, I felt, quite frankly disgusted. After Saddam Hussein was hanged, she remarked that “I hope they hang George Bush next.” OK, let’s face it, a lot of people all over the world, not just Muslims, have felt that way. Even I admit to having had such thoughts on occasion. But that’s not something I would care to say out loud if I were a “spiritual” teacher representing the “purist” form of Islam. Many times she went on about how the U.S. and Israel (big surprise!), or sometimes flat out saying Christians and Jews, are causing problems to every other country, especially Pakistan. I asked her – What about Darfur? She said, despite no evidence whatsoever, that Israel, not Arab countries, is supplying both the rebels and the government in Khartoum (a fundamentalist, anti-Israel, friends with Bin Laden regime, mind you) with weapons, and that “if someone sells you weapons, you can’t help but use them.” I thought Sufism taught that people should be responsible for their own lives and work on purifying themselves from the inside out? But when she talked about being “slaves to Allah” I got the idea that it was all about the outside-in for her.

She did, however, show some unorthodox opinion in her criticism of charity, a requirement in Islam, referring to it as just a “handout” and recited the Bible quote about “giving a man a fish.” I replied that it’s easier to learn how to fish if you’re not starving, and millions in this country are doing just that. (I still defend this position – look at what Muhammad Yusuf, a Nobel peace prize winning economist, and a Muslim, incidentally, did with Grameen Bank in Bangladesh, now the standard model of micro-loans for many philanthropic organizations. And I can testify in my experience with volunteering with Habitat with Humanity that there is a difference between a hand-up and a hand-out.). Thus, when she told me about the philanthropy she was involved in – running a school for poor children – I was reluctant to participate, as I came to the conclusion that it was a means of filling their heads with the same dismal dogma as the Madrassahs.

One girl I met at her gatherings said she was a journalist, so I told her that I recently started a blog and I asked her if she had written about the problems with the government and such. Begum immediately told us that it is wrong to write negative articles about the government or any political figures in Pakistan. Given her own statements, I found this hypocritical.

I found her general worldview to be as irrational as her political rhetoric. She told me that after doing the obligatory Islamic prayers, I must do extra prayers asking for special favors, and if I did it right, the angels sitting on my shoulders would fly up to heaven and take the prayers straight to Allah. I asked her, from the conventional Islamic view, what the purpose of Sufism is, as the standard practices are supposed to be both necessary and sufficient to lead to eternal bliss in the afterlife, and she said she was more interested in knowing God (Allah) in this life. But she didn’t espouse any special gnosis or metaphysics, as her views showed that she saw God as a completely outer being whom we should fear.

It wasn’t just her statements that disturbed me, but the literature she had me read. While she first gave me this nice, nonsectarian workbook (one endorsed by none other than Deepak Chopra) I was also given this large, imposing looking tome, written by someone who was as fundamentalist as any Wahhabi, about the “glorious religion of Islam.” Most of it was basically a litany of strict rules, and lists every type of person who will go to hell: all non-Muslims, and many Muslims for seemingly slight offenses, such as men not having their beards the correct length, or not using the full name of Allah – “Allah Subana Watala.”

What I saw there didn’t comfort me, either. During one session of reciting religious songs, I saw men twitching like they were overdosing on medication, and one man prostrating in front of her who started screaming at the top of his lungs with agony. Red-faced and slobbering, he alternated between weeping and what appeared to be a wild rage or frenzy. I was later told that he was being “purified,” but I sensed no joy, gentleness, or warmth about it – only fear, aggression, and at times seeming psychosis. It wasn’t very different from what I saw when I was invited to attend a Pentecostal mass – people swaying, yelling, “speaking in tongues.” I think many in the spiritual community would do well to carefully to distinguish between a transformational breakthrough and a personal breakdown!

And that’s when it hit me that this place was nothing more than a cult. That was confirmed when in another session I saw a woman prostrate in front of her, muttering praises about her, and kissing her feet. She allowed this, even though Islam, Sufism or not, doesn’t. The big smile on Begum’s face showed that she seemed to get off on this worship, and she seemed far from immune to the effects of ego that Sufism is supposed to transcend.

I discussed this with the girl journalist I met, and her responses confirmed my suspicions. The girl was not able to demonstrate any independent thought. When discussing the Muhammad cartoon row, for example, all she did was repeat the talking points of fundamentalists, justifying the riots and the carnage, blaming the Danish government for “not protecting Muslims” and refusing to blame the Egyptian clerics or the Saudi establishment for the role they played. She then admitted that she could not form her own opinions on such matters, and that she must consult with Begum on all matters relating to Islam, politics, or anything important. In other words, she acted like she was brainwashed.

This was just too much for me, so after the last gathering I requested to speak with her privately, and she asked me to come two hours early next time. I did just this, but when I arrived I was told by the guards that she would not talk to me and that I could only come at the scheduled time. That was my last attempt to ever see her again. She must have known I was on to her, and that I knew that she knew. It’s just as well, for whatever it was I could learn from her, good or bad, I did.

I have some things to be happy about. The strike is over (and yes there was some violence and destruction of property in Karachi because, apparently, the MQM feel that refugees in Swat don’t deserve aid from Karachi, despite all of the power given them, a party founded by refugees!). After experiencing the hottest May, probably the hottest month, in my life, I now have workable air-conditioning once again in my bedroom. This week there was also a carnival at a beach near my house, so I actually had somewhere fun, close by, and inexpensive to go to at night.

But that’s not why I feel satisfied. I feel vindicated because this recent article in Time (Asia edition): www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1898251,00.html has validated my observations, pin-pointing the problematic mentality itself instead of just laying out another general laundry list of the country’s overall problems. It mentions Dr. Houdboy, a man I deeply respect (I have not talked to him, but I have conversed with his brother at length). And going by what the Pakistani ambassador, after some gentle but well-executed prodding by Jon Stewart, seemed to imply as a guest on the Daily Show last week, it seems that the need for earnest self-criticism may be getting through to some. I’m tempted to gloat, but that won’t solve anything. Instead, I’d like to illustrate my feelings with a parable -

Somewhere, in an isolated kingdom, something strange happened to the water. It contained an undetected chemical that, when ingested, made the drinker gradually lose their sanity. At first it only affected a few people near the well, whom everyone dismissed as village idiots. Then the poor were affected, who were dismissed as lunatics due to starvation. Then the whole kingdom, save for the king, who had his own private water, started going mad. The king warned them not to drink the water, but everyone dismissed him, wondering if he was insane because he was not acting like them or saying the kinds of things they were. Eventually the kingdom totally ignored the king because they decided that he in fact was the crazy one, and they were all sane. Tired of uselessly warning them, having his edicts ignored, and having his sanity called into question, he decided to drink the poisoned water himself. When he eventually became like them, they said: “Ah, the King has finally come back to his senses!”

The obvious meaning is that when you can’t beat them, you join them. Not that you should do this, but simply that this is what people typically end up doing when facing extreme social pressure to conform and not be judged wrong simply because you are different. It means, in a sense, that one’s reality is at least in part socially constructed. And while your senses might be working just fine, and your logic in order, it makes no difference if the majority routinely distort their own reason when it comes to politics (owing much more to psychological and emotional factors, rather than a lack of intelligence or even access to education).

To wit, the ideology of Pakistan has always been very skewed.  Thus it’s not a big surprise that the creation of this state has been, overall, a disaster for most people involved (including those it was supposed to help). Zia-ul-Haqq was not entirely to blame, but the seeds his regime planted were so destructive that over 20 years after he was killed Pakistan has not fully recovered, and will likely continue to reap this bitter harvest for decades to come.

Nothing short of a major overhaul of the entire education system is likely to produce long-term results, which is as likely to happen in this country as going a full week without rolling blackouts.

As I’ve more or less said goodbye to the first place that hired me in Pakistan, a school I’ve taught at for three years, I’ve been in training for a new job that will, hopefully, hold me over until I secure another position. At any rate, I’ll be qualified to teach at any Inlingua center in the world. During the past week I’ve been training for Inlingua (it’s like Berlitz) as an English instructor, and while it’s sometimes been stressful, it’s been an enjoyable experience overall. Anyway, it’s not as stressful as tramping around town, interviewing at different schools. Indeed, training in this facility has been like a trip back to the U.S. – well-organized, corporate environment, friendly and professional atmosphere, reliable air-conditioning, American accents, and long days.

Tomorrow there’s going to be yet another planned strike in Karachi. This one, I think, is related to the two-year anniversary of the May 12th massacre. Yes, violence plagues the country as a whole (duh) but the splashy, headline-grabbing events usually occur hundreds of miles away from me. But there’s been some blood-letting in Karachi a few weeks ago, which, strangely, I didn’t even find out about until the next day (it happened, as it usually does, in parts of the city I never visit). I suppose that tomorrow will just be another day off from work for most people. First a strike was called, then a holiday declared by the government in response, and then the strike was supposed to be called off because, apparently, a holiday would make it ineffective. I’m sure there’ll be demonstrations, and if there are riots, things are bound to get ugly. I hope it’s not too hot, as I’ll be spending most of the day indoors (my AC still needs to get fixed!).

With so much to be angry about and so much chaos and confusion, it’s sometimes difficult to know what people truly think and how they truly feel. Last night I watched Fareed Zakaria on the Daily Show pontificating about Pakistan. My first thought was, wow, I bet most Pakistanis watching this, knowing who they are, would get angry at this show before a word was even spoken (featuring, as it did, a pro-American Indian Muslim being interviewed by a liberal American Jew). I agreed with everything Zakaria said, but one comment surprised me. He claimed that, despite anti-Americanism being at an all time high (true) in Pakistan, the majority are now actually in favor of the drone plane attacks! I’ve never heard any Pakistani express support for that, so I looked it up. I did find this blog article in Wired: http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/pakistanis-hear/.  

Support for military campaigns against the Taliban is probably not growing, but the creation of refugees, now close to 900,000, certainly is.

It’s hard to know what to make of all this, but I think we need to be cautious before coming to hasty conclusions about public opinion. The U.S. has a long way to go before it wins Pakistani hearts and minds. The best thing to do is the limit any violence, come up with a comprehensive, well-planned Afghanistan policy (including plans for an exit), and consider how to assist Pakistan constructively in a way that minimizes: interference in their government, support for fanatics, aiding corruption, wasting American tax-payer money, threats to India, or jeopardizing our troops or civilians. In other words, it’s the same damn story as before!

One post I’ve been waiting a long time to put it is about my confusing, and unfortunately, largely disappointing, experience with Sufism in Pakistan (I’ll relate a specific story about that in a later post). For those who don’t know, Sufism is considered the mystical core of Islam, without which Islam can be relegated to an outwardly-focused, politisized and law-based edifice. Indeed, Wahhabism, the ruling ideology of Saudi Arabia (which houses Islam’s holiest sites, including Mecca, which is a required pilgrimmage site for all able Muslims), condemns Sufism and is one of the strictest and puritanical (read: intolerant) branches of this religion. That’s the Islam I never wanted to experience in Pakistan, or at least observe from a safe distance, but it is an ideology that is gaining allies (along with related political parties and doctrines, such as Deobandi Islam).

Much to my surprise, Sufism in Pakistan turned out to be little of what I expected, or what attracted me to it in the first place. Sufism, first and foremost, is supposed to be a pure expression of humility, divine love towards self, others, and God, and it often incorporates beautiful poetry and sophisticated metaphysics. I have encountered few philosophers, and even the gentlest and most open-minded make concessions to the dominant trope of machismo, nationalism and religious supremacy in Pakistan. It seems like Sufism is largely a way for otherwise devout Muslims, who harbor strong views about the superiority of Islam, to express their devotion to the Qur’an, the Prophet, his successors, different Sheiks (masters) or Qalandars,  and the glories of past Muslim empires (khalifat) with striking emotional intensity. Passion and wild exuberant displays are generally frowned upon by more conservative, and moderate, Muslims, but even many conservatives seemed to have tipped over to brazen displays of anger (obviously, at Islam’s perceived enemies). I suspect that this emotionalism is partly an expression of the general angry mood of the country, particularly towards America and the West, which naturally reflects how Muslims the worldover feel right now.

But I think this emotionalism is also part  of the culture of the subcontinent which, like many original non-Arab and non-Muslim lands that were conquered and/or converted to Islam, adapted to a foreign religion by retaining their culture and keeping much of their social structure intact (within certain limits of course).

During India’s Gupta’s empire, the last great Hindu civilization before foreign domination and splintering off into separate kingdoms, devotional mysticism, based on the rise of illiterate folks and simple workers and peasants, expressing their devotion to Bhagwan (God) in poetry, song, and dance. One of Hinduism’s most popular scripture – the Bhagavad Gita (song of the God-man Krishna) – inspired a movement of Yoga (spiritual discipline) through Karma (action) and Bhakti (devotion to a deity). The links to later Islamic development, and folk Islam in particular, is evident to me. It’s not hard to see symbolic parallels between romantic love stories, and the idea of “falling in love” with God. (I wonder if the higher meaning of love stories is remembered in today’s Bollywood, beyond the obvious sociological trope of yearning for ”forbidden love” in a climate of arranged marriages, casteism, and Romeo and Juliet type family feuds). 

Below I am reprinting a letter I wrote to Dawn newspaper concerning a feature and interview they did on Tariq Ramadan. It address what I feel is one of the most central problems in Muslim countries, and that is the lack of a spiritual-focus in the resurgence of Muslim piety. Looking back, I think I made an error.  For Muslims, Islam’s holiest scripture, the Qur’an, is considered not just a text, but a means to an experience that can properly be called “spiritual.” To Muslims, the recitation of the Qur’an (the word in Arabic literally means “recitation”) is indeed a spiritual act because of a metaphysical injunction, as a response to rationalist philosophy, determined by a consensus of theologians over 800 years ago who decided that the words of the Qur’an are the literal speech of Allah (God) and that it must be considered literally sacred, pure, and uncreat. So hearing/reciting this text literally puts Muslims into direct contact, or as close as they can come in this life, with Allah. This perspective also means, incidentally, that contextualism, historicism, or any relativizing of the Qur’an vis-a-vis other texts and cultures is virtually impossible.

Anyway, here is the letter-to-the-editor:

What is Spirituality?

I found your piece Author: Walking the Tightrope (July 27^th issue), which featured a Tariq Ramadan interview, quite interesting. While I find his philosophy and historical perspective rather myopic, I can appreciate the difficulty of his chosen task – bridging two seemingly opposed civilizational spheres.

However, my disagreement in this particular case is more subtle. Ramadan talks about spirituality in a way that I believe is common, but flawed.

It should be noted that “spirituality” is one of the most difficult words to define. It should be so, as it describes a reality beyond the limitations of semantics, and it is this very word that confronts us with the inadequacy of language to represent the world in its entirety. Indeed, I sometimes feel spirituality is bandied about too frequently and carelessly in popular discourse, and would rather avoid using the term altogether.

Many sages, East and West, have had a different take on the issue than orthodox religion, which tends to limit spirituality to a certain idea of holiness, or so-called New Age thought, which tends to equate spirituality with good feelings. Tariq Ramadan’s definition of spirituality is something between a thought and feeling, or a balance of rationality and emotion. In Greek, this would be a marriage of mythos and logos, the values of Dionysus and Apollo, respectively. For Muslims to be spiritual means that they should study the sacred texts of Islam, and should be passionate in applying these teachings to the world. This makes sense, but I feel it misses the point entirely.

First, let’s look at the etymology of the word. In Latin, spiritus means “life animating force” and is related to the Greek pneuma, which means “breath” (the actual respiration process, as well as a life-sustaining ether connected with it). Spiritus is the root of the English words: spirit, spirituality, and sprite.

Spirit is a force that moves through us – but is itself not a vehicle. Normally, energy (potential or kinetic) is conserved or converted into another form, but Spirit is not bound by this principle. For example, a person at a football match might be said to have “spirit” for his or her favourite team. More than one person rooting for the same team adds to that spirit, and thus the group can be said to have “team spirit.” Unlike material resources, if one person gains team spirit, it does not mean that another must lose some. Further, team spirit does not seem to “go” anywhere after the game ends. We perceive that this phenomenon, whatever it is, can only be explained through analogy, because it is better known through experience (in Greek, gnosis).

Here is what mystics generally report about Spirit: 1.) It is real. 2.) It is boundless. 3.) It is immaterial, but it matters. 4.) It is a paradox – transcendental and inclusive 7.) It is pure consciousness (doesn’t have consciousness, but simply is). 8.) It is all that we humans truly desire.

Here is what spirituality is not: 1.) Sensations or perceptions, though it involves them. 2.) Emotion, though it is emotional to have a spiritual experience. 3.) Ideas, though it includes them too. 4.) A monopoly of any one religion.

What is the implication? Religion without spirituality is shallow at best, fanatical at worst. Without a spiritual core, morality devolves into rigid penal codes, philosophy into unquestionable (and often irrational) dogma, and art into propaganda. If people are poor on the inside, they will seek control from without through power, conquest, and greed. In short, when religion looses touch with its spirituality core it becomes bad politics. And it is largely because there is so much narrow ideology masquerading as wisdom that religion gets a bad image, and many good people give up on it altogether.

But there is a solution. Whether we engage in dhikr, meditation, Yoga, or any tried and true contemplative method, we will find treasures buried within that can sustain us, free us, and make life beautiful.

Indian-American commentator and Newsweek editor/writer Fareed Zakaria wrote a poignant and sobering piece in a recent issue: http://www.newsweek.com/id/187093

Sadly, inevitably, he concedes that liberals (and capitalists) of all stripes in the West must face the reality that Islamic extremism is not going away any time soon; it’s growing actually, and non-Muslim countries (particularly their governments) can’t really do much about it. But he makes a distinction that, at first blush, seems like needless hair-splitting, but is actually quite clarifying. Extreme Islam (as a nativist phenomenon) must be separated from global jihadism, which represents Al Qaeda’s transnational use of violence to destroy and topple governments in Muslim and non-Muslim countries alike. The latter’s danger is obvious enough, particularly with the prospect of loose biological and nuclear material in the hands of bloodthirsty fanatics bent on mass destruction. He concludes, optimistically, that if Bin Laden’s ideology dies, and his cadres are shutdown, then the lesser threat posed by native Islamic extremism will die down on its own, as its political program will later prove itself inadequate to its current supporters and subjects. As he says – they [political Islamists] can’t meet the needs of people in the modern world, but we [free countries] can.

He’s probably right. But how long will that take? How long can we sit back, be patient, and watch it happen? How many innocent women, minorities, and non-Muslims must suffer in the process? And how will it change, exactly? Revolutions against authoritarian regimes are rarely smooth or peaceful, and the more authoritarian the regime, generally, the bloodier the conflict. These are not easy matters, but my reservations aside, I don’t see any realistic or alternative compelling vision to Zakaria’s insights.

I tried to put my own comments on the NW site, but you have to be a subscriber. I saved my comments and decided to post them here:

” Groups like the ones in Pakistan who attack others (non-Muslims) like the recent Sri Lankan cricket team, whether for religious or socio-political reasons, indeed ARE the same type of global jihadists we need to overcome! But merely implementing sharia-law in their own country, as disgusting as it is, itself is not enough to justify military action. And groups like the Taliban often use the same terrorist methods (i.e. suicide bombings, kidnappings and be-headings, attacks on foreigners, destroying buildings, etc.) as global jidhadists. The article doesn’t say we should do absolutely nothing about it. There are other, if “weaker,” ways we can help victims/refugees of extreme Islam in terms of said countries’ internal despotism. And even if we just do nothing more than wait for women and minorities to rise up against their oppressors, we must consider this as a triage situation, with Al Qaedism as the biggest pathology facing America and global stability.

Military action against outright aggression toward other nations is clearly justified internationally (hence the large support for Iraq War I). Genocide confined within a state’s own borders is a murkier area, but there is general recognition that such a phenomenon is severe enough to warrant armed action by foreign bodies if the population under attack is totally defenseless. But simply for bad regimes, theocratic authoritarianism, and lack of democracy alone, war is clearly not the right tool. War (as it is an invasion by an outside, occupying force) can even work against such humanitarian efforts (think Iraq II).

Still, when all is said and done, I don’t know if extreme Muslims, such as the Pakistani Taliban, can be trusted not to use WMD’s if they hold power in state governments. Is there not a close connection between their internal tyranny and their external violence/hegemony? This is especially true for those whose worldview does not recognize:  the modern nation-state system, the UN and Universal Declaration of Human Rights, or the inherent right of non-Muslims to believe in/practice their religions, follow non-Arabic cultural practices, and implement religiously neutral governments (not to mention the inherent irrationality of those with fundamentalist-literalistic, supernatural, and apocalyptic beliefs).”

Unless you live in a cave somewhere (although certain cave-dwellers, no doubt, have also taken a keen interest) then you know that Obama won the presidential election. So what does that mean for Pakistan?

In the broader Muslim world, this son of a Kenyan Muslim and white Christan American may represent some much needed changes. According to the “We” campaign (closely related to the “One” campaign, Avaaz, and many others) he has agreed to double federal aid to the world’s poorest, set a time-table for U.S. troops in Iraq, and work closely with the Iraqi government and U.S. military for a feasible exist strategy, do more for the environment, do more for Darfur, and engage Iran constructively over issues like Iraq and the nuclear threat. Again, what about Pakistan?

With a few exceptions, I’ve noticed that the reactions of Pakistanis to the U.S. election has been lukewarm at best. The media often ridiculed both candidates, saying that McCain wanted to permanently occupy Iraq, and that Obama wanted to permanently occupy Afghanistan. Both are of course wild exaggerations. McCain was not exactly popular, as he was considered an extension of Bush, who is hated even more than Musharraf. But Obama angered Pakistanis a great deal with his comments about vowing to come into Pakistan to get Bin Laden and destroy the Taliban/Al Qaeda if Pakistan is unable or unwilling.  I’ve read countless articles stating that the U.S. “occupies” Pakistan, even though no troops are stationed here. And while predator drones do violate boundaries, the U.S. has honored Pakistan’s demand that they not build or use military bases on Pakistan’s soil. The few government workers and military personnel in Pakistan are not on-duty soldiers. Many claim that the U.S. is violating international law with the increasing incursions, but that’s hard to argue considering that continuing attacks from Pakistan constitute a casus belli (and other countries have already been shouting at the top of their lungs to America that Pakistan is not to be trusted).

But even I admit some very sobering realities that the next administration must face, whatever their party of ideology: (i) the U.S. military cannot keep bombing Pakistan if innocent civilians, including women and children, continue to die, (ii) Most Pakistanis have their own agenda and have never fully trusted the U.S., or any outsiders, which limits our ability to “export” any particular version of democracy, (iii) despite Pakistan’s links to a particular history/culture in a certain region, it is still dominated by a larger Islamic narrative at odds with how many Westerners, and non-Muslims, think, (iv) the best hope we have in plugging up the hole in the flood of jihadis – ones planning missions all over the place – is stability in both Afghanistan and Pakistan, no matter how unpalatible we might find the current set-up of their governments. Forcing a top-down bureaucracy in Afghanistan has never worked, so we must respect tribal sovereignty and local ways of knowing. The same applies in the NWFP and FATA regions of north-west Pakistan. If America is inexperieced and ill-suited to this type of combat, then Pakistan’s military, which was basically constructed to fight India, is even less so.

If Obama really is going to step-up military action here, I hope he doesn’t repeat past mistakes. Escalating the war in Afghanistan, or starting a new one with Pakistan, won’t help. One thing he could do with a large influx of troops is to set-up a lot more patrols and stations along the parts of the Afghan-Pak border (i.e. north and south Waziristan). It is difficult for either government to monitor and police this porous, mountainous area, where militants dress just like civilians, and local tribal mafias control much of the trade between the two countries. Will more border troops make much of a difference? Probably not, but if we do that, at least we can at least dismiss Pakistan’s excuse that they can’t do anything about the militants on their own soil.

What else can be done? Perhaps build a road-map to peace involving the Afghan and Pakistan governments, along with the relevant tribal leaders, and emphasize the common stake all parties involved have in maintaining stability and warding off international jihad. If Saudi Arabia is the only authority that the Taliban will listen to, sadly, we can’t then ignore them as a resource to make deals (although we can strive for more energy independence and not flush them with as many petro-dollars).

But what can we do about sympathizers and defectors in the ISI and Pakistani military? I have no idea. As it is, there is still mass denial in this country about Khalid Sheikh Muhammad’s role in planning 9/11, Lt. General Mahmoud Ahmed’s transfer of $100,000 to lead hijacker Muhammad Atta, via Omar Sheikh, and Brigadier Ejaz Shah’s friendship with the Taliban and, allegedly, Bin Laden himself (and may have also been behind the Bhutto assassination). While guilt-by-association alone does not hold up in court, there are so many associations, and so little prosecution, that one wonders how Pakistan feels it has the right to complain about the riping of seeds it has sown! 

If there is any single solution, it is probaly through education. And not just more education, but better education. That is, an education with a broad curriculum free of the bias of intolerant ideologies, one that values the arts and sciences, imparts practical life-skills to students, and does not blind them with shrill, simplistic dogma.

If Obama can play any part in making that come true, that would be truly amazing. Whether he can ever capture Osama bin Laden and drag him to the international court at the Hague for crimes against humanity is uncertain. What he is is more important – an inspiring leader who represents the polar opposite of the Al Qaeda vision, and an America that transcends their propaganda.

After reading this story on Yahoo: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081012/ap_on_re_as/pakistan_tribes_fight_back;_ylt=Ahi7FRs2L9NymQjT0hkVIrZn.3QA

I’m again holding out for some faith in the Pakistani government, as naive as that is of me.

Enough of that, though. The year is almost over, there will be a new U.S. president very soon, and we can all hope to turn the page…

For the last week and a half I’m been incapacitated by a nasty bout of conjectivitus, restricting my ability to work, read, and write (including, obviously, any new posts). Now that it appears to be, thankfully, clearing up, I’m been able to read again.

I picked up an old issue of Dawn newspaper (Sunday, September 28th) lying around my place today and read a good article about Richard Wright, one of the founding members of the legendary Pink Floyd, who passed away in early September. The article was spot on by comparing him to George Harrison of the Beatles; indeed, his playing and creative contributions to the Floyd were underrated. He was a quiet musician who was never flashy and didn’t take the spotlight, but he was so integral to the Floyd sound that without his keyboards they wouldn’t be the same. He will be missed.

But that really has nothing to do with Pakistan (the whole point of this blog) now does it. The reason I’m bringing this up is because in the same issue of Dawn had a review of a play called “Vakeel Sahib” put on by the Karachi Arts Council. I suppose this bears mentioning because many outsiders probably don’t even realize that there is modern culture here, and that Pakistan is not filled with 100% craziness. Despite all of of the events this country has experienced in the last two years since I’ve lived here, I’ve still managed to see good art work in galleries, good theater, and hear good music. As they say in show business – “the show must go on.”

I’ll say more about the Arts Council in another post….

Finally, there is solid evidence from a country besides America that there really is a link between the ISI, the Taliban, and the increase in terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081001/ap_on_re_eu/eu_spain_pakistan_taliban

I wouldn’t be surprised if the major rebuttal here would be something like “the entire Western media is dominated by evil Zionist Jews bent on world domination, and focused on targeting Muslims.” It’s a circular logic that can’t be falsified, as every explanation can be traced back to that conspiracy.

Speaking of which, I have noticed something odd about books in Karachi. Many open-markets and local book stores, called “book wallas” (literally “he has books”) carry Hitler’s Mein Kampf. This is true whether it’s big or small, a normal bookstore or one saturated with Islamic literature.

Once, when visiting someone’s apartment, I also noticed that he had the same tome. I asked why he had it, and he said he was just curious about the mind of a madman, not that he agreed with his views in any way. That’s valid; I myself have read books on Hitler for historical reasons.

But the thing is, if that were the case with these book sellers, then you would expect to find other books that the majority of Pakistanis would find objectionable. Yet I haven’t, with the exception of Liberty Books, where you might find stuff by Alan Dershowitz (pro-Israel/American foreign policy), books on atheism, and even some criticism of Islam. But the aforementioned bookstores carry typical, uncontroversial selections. And I’m sure that the book sellers would ban books they really found offensive. So that only conclusion I can come to is the most disturbing one – many book buyers/sellers really agree with Hitler’s views.

Another disturbing book I frequently see is one called “The Wisdom of Jihad.” Before perusing it, I figured that it probably had an expanded notion of jihad, which in Islamic conception encompasses a lot more than just physical warfare. However, this book is really just about war in Islam.

First, the author divides the world into Muslims versus non-Muslims. War is allowed against Muslims who are considered traitors, what the Qur’an calls “munafiq” (hypocrites) who only pretend to be Muslims. It is also a duty of Muslims to defend against non-Muslim aggression, though what he considers “defense” and “aggression” is quite different than international law, or how most governments use those terms.

To him, non-Muslims are OK if they have a holy book acceptable to Islam, and peacefully accept the absolute right of Muslims to rule them, or pay the poll tax (jizya) levied on subjects exempt from the required Islamic charity (zikaat). If non-Muslims don’t allow Muslims to rule them, even if their lands have been conquered, then they are “hostile” to Muslims. So in theory, even a group in some isolated hinterland, who just want to be left alone, are potentially “hostile” if they are non-Muslims and freely practice a religion besides Islam.

If this is what passes for “wisdom,” then I don’t even want to know what a lack of wisdom would be.

OK, I’m making another angry post. I know I should try to be more fair and open-minded, but I just can’t help it.

It’s not just a stereotype any more. Apparently most Pakistanis really do despise America. And opinion is turning against Americans in general, not just certain figures in the government.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081001/wl_csm/opakviews;_ylt=AntKMNqfr5NdXWZf071OK7X9xg8F

www.examiner.com/a1451329~Poll_finds_Pakistanis_favor_talks_with_militants.html

I’ve noticed that many Pakistanis act though Americans are not just human beings. Americans are either considered magical angels, or demonic djinn disguised in suits, military uniforms, or trendy clothes. White skin is considered amazing, and American accents are increasingly praised (it used to be British accents were the mark of sophistication). But for many, anything “American” appears as a threat. This all feeds the cause of phony American exceptionalism.

It cuts two ways. One is a sort of manifest destiny ideology. America can’t really do wrong in the world because it is destined, by God’s will, to some higher destiny to lead everyone to salvation.

Obviously America’s strength and power has to do with a combination of historical contingencies, cross-cultural pollination, political-economic developments, bold social experimentation, and plenty of nasty realities true of any imperial power. Like any world power, it’s a mixed bag. There’s a lot to be proud of, and a lot to be ashamed of (and I truly believe most Americans are honest and will admit that what is wrong is wrong).

The second flawed idea of exceptionalism is the notion, propagated by some on the radical Left, and used to good effect by Islamic imperialists, that America is exceptionally bad. But the arguments about how uniquely awful America is whither away with a dash of objectivity and historical reflection.

Pakistan’s view of America which, historically speaking, is rather short in the greater scheme of things, is shaped both by that relationship, and Pakistan’s history as a colonized Muslim land under the British Empire. America and Pakistan seem to have little in common except that they were both once part of that empire, and both are, in theory, republics. Now that America has replaced Britain as the major world power, the one Pakistan depends on most (China not withstanding) the projection has shifted. There is either indulgent fawning, or anger and contempt. Whereas many Americans (though not all) might want to see Pakistan, despite its weaker status, as not only a partner but an equal, Pakistani culture is hierarchical and locates relationships in terms of superiors and inferiors. Only in a few social situations – older Muslim men (of the same sect) together at some function like a wedding or religious event – is there any sense of real equality.

I know I’ve written about this before, and I do understand it cognitively, yet I’m still frustrated by the fact that the Taliban/Al Qaeda can attack Pakistani civilians, and still earn sympathy. Their strategy is working! Many Pakistanis blame the instability caused in neighboring Afghanistan on the U.S. military presence, or the increased dips into Pakistani territory. Some Pakistanis even think all these terrorist attacks are actually being secretly done by Americans themselves.

But there are strange contradictions. First, many of these militants, or their descendents, benefited from U.S. support against the Soviets and then turned on America. Of course, if you view unbelievers as morally/spiritually inferior to begin with, then you owe them no gratitude or loyalty. But Pakistani critics of U.S. foreign policy blame America for supporting radicals and giving them power in the first place (along with the military regime in Islamabad). But that implies that these critics are against the militants. And yet, these same critics seem to agree with the anti-American ideology of the radicals.

Even though many of the terrorists not native Pakistani citizens, and some of them despise and abuse Pakistanis, particularly Arabs, they are still seen as Muslims. They are considered members of the Umma – the universal brotherhood of Islam that transcends national boundaries and command ultimate loyalty under Allah. If Muslims are attacked, even in self-defense, then they must be avenged at all costs. Any attack on the Taliban are now considered attacks on Pakistani sovereignty. There is no call for Muslims to put themselves in the shoes of Americans, imagining whether if they were attacked, might they also retaliate.

But this is good news:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080930/ap_on_re_a /as_pakistan_spy_chief;_ylt=AixX1m2l.Vp3I.np3kZLvW0Bxg8F

Maybe democracy will work. I just don’t know when.

Islam uses a lunar calendar for its religious holidays, rituals, and celebrations. To determine what the day is for a holiday, a committee must be set-up to assess the exact position of the moon, which is of course aided by modern technology. But this is an old tradition, and indeed was one of the things that led the Arabs towards advances in astronomy.

So it was announced last night that today is officially Eid al-Fitr, the end of Ramadan (the month of fasting for Muslims). It’s a quiet, peaceful time, one of family fun. There is also another Eid (al-Adha) that will occur closer to Christmastime. Like Christmas, people get vacation, friends and family gather around and have a big meal, and give gifts or eidhi (money).

Today I’ve had that John Lennon/Yoko Ono song about Christmas running around in my head. These lyrics in particular are relevant:

“Merry, merry Christmas/and a happy new year.  

Let’s hope it’s a good one/without any fear.

War is over/if you want it.”

I pray for a happy, safe Eid today, and real solutions to get us out of the impasse facing Pakistan, America, and the perilous War on Terror in the coming year.